DECISION

 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Arslan Ahmad

Claim Number: FA2602002205729

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Eryn Y. Truong of Loza & Loza, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Arslan Ahmad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hondapartners.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026.

 

On February 17, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hondapartners.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@hondapartners.com. Also on February 19, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is in the automobile business having offered products under the HONDA mark and related logo marks since 1959. Complainant asserts rights in the HONDA mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967). Respondent's <hondapartners.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term "partners" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <hondapartners.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's HONDA mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website ("Respondent's Website") that reproduces Complainant's HONDA mark and related logo and passes off as being associated with the Complainant. In the Respondent's Website Respondent purports to offer investment opportunities with the Complainant; which is false and involves the commission of a fraud.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <hondapartners.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain by seeking to attract visitors to the Respondent's Website where it passes off as the Complainant for the purposes of committing a fraud, by offering fraudulent investment opportunities.  Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HONDA mark as the Respondent's Website reproduces both the HONDA mark and Complainant's logo.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the HONDA mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments.  See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the HONDA mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that the <hondapartners.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA mark as it fully incorporates the HONDA mark and adds the generic term "partners" and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Colin LeMahieu v. NANO DARK, FA 1786065 (Forum June 9, 2018) (finding that the addition of a generic term and the generic top-level domain ".com" insufficient to differentiate the <nanodark.com> domain name from the NANO mark); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HONDA mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Arslan Ahmad" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent's Website, which reproduces Complainant's HONDA mark and associated logo and advertises and promotes fraudulent investment opportunities. Use of a domain name to commit a fraud or attempted fraud is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) ("[T]he Domain Name has been used in an attempted fraud. As such it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, June 8, 2026, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's HONDA mark. The Complainant has used the HONDA mark for over 60 years in the United States and had developed a significant reputation in the mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. Furthermore, the Respondent's Website makes reference to the Complainant and its marks including reproducing its HONDA and logo marks and images of its vehicles, as part of its purpose to offer fraudulent investment opportunities purportedly with the Complainant. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates to the HONDA mark and use it in this manner, other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the HONDA mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's HONDA Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that advertises and promotes fraudulent investment opportunities. Use of a disputed domain name in this manner is bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin, FA 1605239 (Forum Mar. 22, 2015) (finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant's trademark suggests Respondent's bad faith).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hondapartners.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 12, 2026